WALCZAK v HENDRIX LAW

This Application sought permission to appeal an Order requiring the Applicant to post Security for Costs. The Order arose from the Applicants attempted Appeal connected to a completed foreclosure proceeding.

The Applicant invoked Rule 14.5 to challenge the Security for Costs Order, arguing that the single Appeal Judge erred in principle and improperly exercised discretion. The Court was therefore required to determine whether the Applicant had identified a reviewable error or raised an issue of sufficient public or legal importance to justify further appellate intervention.

Appeal Justice Kirker confirmed that permission to appeal a decision of a single appeal Judge is an extraordinary remedy. Under Rule 14.5, permission will only be granted where the applicant demonstrates a question of general importance, a possible error of law, an unreasonable exercise of discretion, or a misapprehension of material facts, together with a compelling public interest reason for further appellate review.

Applying that framework, the Court held that the Applicant had failed to meet the threshold. The Applicant largely re-argued issues arising from the Foreclosure Proceeding rather than identifying any reviewable error in the Security for Costs decision itself. Kirker J.A. emphasized that discretionary decisions are entitled to deference on appeal and that mere disagreement with the result, or a desire to re-litigate settled matters, is insufficient to justify another level of review.

Kirker J.A. further noted that the Applicant had not addressed the findings underpinning the Security for Costs Order, including the lack of merit in the Appeal, unpaid prior Cost Awards, and the absence of evidence that posting security would cause undue prejudice. The Application did not raise an issue of general importance and disclosed no compelling reason for the Court to intervene. The Application was dismissed.